Ethnic make up of Crimea.

[another_liberal]

For those who wonder what the percentages of different ethnic groups in Crimea might be, here you are:



With a referendum on Crimean independence now set for May 25th, some serious fence-mending is likely to be needed if Ukraine wants to keep this region in the Ukrainian nation.

[Coyotl]

1. I worry more about their politics.

Some of the political actors fomenting this unrest and overthrow of a democracy want to reconquer all of Europe.

[hrmjustin]

3. If there is to be a referendum the Russians should withdraw so it is fair.

With the Russians there with guns a referendum would be difficult.


Welcome to DU.

[amandabeech]

4. Your absolutely right.

The referendum results will be tainted completely if the Russians are still there.

[Scootaloo]

27. It is actually impossible while the Russians are there

If a territory wishes to declare independence, it must have control over the territory it's claiming - this is why the Palestinians for instance cannot just unilaterally go "We're a state, fuck off!"

[TBF]

7. Are you in Ukraine currently?

I am just curious. I just posted a piece in "Good Reads" about Trotsky on Ukraine (and the need for the people of the Ukraine to self-rule).

[TBF]

13. I don't know the history

as well as you and appreciate you go through that. Also I agree with your analysis. I'm glad you came on DU to give this perspective. Welcome!

[Adrahil]

6. Agreed... but it's not like they will be far away...

... no doubt ready to come back in if the vote were to not go their way.

I guess the Crimean Tatars will need to pack their bags..... AGAIN.

[Adrahil]

16. Following WWII, the Crimean Tatars were mostly forcibly relocated by the Soviet Union..

... most were forced to relocate Eastern Russian.... FAR away from Crimea.

It's important to remember that when certain members here bleat about how Crimea "used to belong to Russia."

[Adrahil]

28. I would more or less agree....

.... Though I think we do have to be a bit careful. The Tatars have been screwed over historically, and while Crimea is majority ethnic Russian, that should not be a license to abuse the over 40% who are not.

[another_liberal]

9. That would, though, be the green light for Svoboda to move into Crimea.

Honestly, do you think they would be welcomed by the Russian-speaking majority there? I fear a true bloodbath might ensue.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. So you are now on the record for supporting the Russian occupation.

Fair enough.

[another_liberal]

8. I would prefer it that Ukraine would stay one country . . .

I am not, however, a citizen of Ukraine, or of Crimea, and I am definitely not a Russian descended, Russian-speaking citizen of such.

At this point, I suspect, for Ukraine to remain whole would require the so-called "Interim Government" in Kiev to step aside, Yanukovich to resume his authority as President and his majority coalition of Rada deputies to be given back their seats. The early election (which all parties agreed to only a little over a week ago) could then reaffirm Yanukovich's Presidency, or remove him and his coalition from power. That is what we like to call "democracy!"

And welcome to Democratic Underground, goziozzskiy!

[another_liberal]

12. In this current situation . . .

The use of deadly military force would be extremely foolish. You are completely correct concerning the protection of human life being paramount. In this current situation, we must remain calm and pragmatic. Military force by anyone involved could lead to the kind of wholesale bloodshed, destruction and death that no sane person can possibly want to see.

Crimea, as you note, was only added to Ukraine sixty years ago, and even after that transfer they both remained within the Soviet Union. I seriously doubt such an action would have even been considered had people at the time foreseen a breaking up of the Soviet Union itself. That makes Crimean independence a different situation than it would be if one of the States of the United States, for example, attempted to secede and become its own country. I think it is entirely justified for the citizens of Crimea to have a free and fair vote to decide the question of their independence, or continued status as a part of the larger Ukraine.

[pampango]

14. Assuming the 41.5% who are not ethnic Russians vote No, it would only take a few

ethnic Russians (perhaps liberals who do not see a future with Putin's domestic policies and prefer the "humanist, socially liberal policies that exist in Europe) to lead to a surprising result in the referendum. What then? Does Putin say "The people have spoken. We are out of here."

And I'm not sure that Putin wants people in provinces/regions voting in referendums to determine what their national affiliation will be. There are many regions in Russia where ethnic Russians are a minority. I suspect the "Putin Rule" on nationality referendums only applies when and where Putin says it applies. And that is the beauty of large armies (though I think they are an incredible waste of money). Rules don't apply to you; only to countries with smaller armies.

[another_liberal]

17. Your last point, about countries with large and small armies is spot on.

Our own country's recent history proves it fairly well.

As to how the non-Russians will vote in Crimea's referendum, I doubt if all of them will be against independence, especially not when the alternative is staying under the control of the kind of clowns who outlaw political parties, censor the press, elevate unelected "technocrat" stooges to the Presidency (at the behest of the US government) and have no clue how to run an economy (except for begging handouts from anyone who will listen).

[pampango]

19. We shall see but I doubt too many non-Russians in Crimea think that Putin

is a paragon of democracy, civil rights, economic management (his man, Yanukovych, certainly was not) or a supporter of a free press.

In the short term it looks like a choice between the "lesser-of-two-evils". In a longer term view you could argue that the chance for some level of economic prosperity and liberal social policy is greater the current Ukraine administration and its tilt towards Europe than is a closer association with Putin's Russia.

[another_liberal]

20. I think the Crimean referendum is to be for or against independence . . .

I've heard nothing about it's being about a union with Russia.

[pampango]

21. The new Crimean leader changed the referendum date from May 25 (passed by parliament) to March 30

but did not really explain why.

Crimea's new pro-Moscow premier, Sergei Aksenov, moved the date of the peninsula's status referendum to March 30.

On Thursday, the Crimean parliament, which appointed Aksenov, had called for a referendum on May 25, the date also set for the urgent presidential election in Ukraine.

“In connection with a necessity we decided to speed up the holding of the referendum on the stauts of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea,” Aksenov said Saturday in Simferopol at a new government session, the UNIAN information agency reported.

Earlier that day, Aksenov, head of the nationalist Russian Unity organization, appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin “to render assistance in securing peace and tranquility on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea," UNIAN reported.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-crimea-referendum-date-20140301,0,2305350.story#axzz2v1DwtWQ3

The only reason for moving up the date given was "in connection with a necessity". I'm not sure what that is code for or if he has explained it more fully somewhere else. Was "the necessity" that Vladimir decided he needed an early referendum, while emotions are high and troops are widespread, because he wants a positive vote on it to bolster his case now not 3 months from now?

The Washington Post has an article supposedly clarifying the wording of the referendum:

Volodymyr Konstantynov, chairman of the Supreme Council of Crimea and a high-ranking official in the same new regime, claims that it would give Crimea the status of a “state” and that Crimea – and Ukraine as a whole – belong to “the Russian world.” Some Russian media describe it as a referendum on independence as well. The Russian-language text of the question to be put before the voters is as follows:

Автономная республика Крым обладает государственной самостоятельностью и входит в состав Украины на основе договоров и соглашений (да или нет )?”

I loosely translate this as “The autonomous republic of Crimea possesses state independence and is a part of Ukraine on the basis of treaties and agreements (yes or no)?” In Russian, as in English, this legalistic language is ambiguous enough to be interpreted either way. Perhaps it means that Crimea is an independent state that has some loose connection to Ukraine based on agreements. Or it could mean that Crimea has a legal right to be independent if it want to, but has chosen not to be. Legalistic hair-splitting aside, there is little doubt that Putin could use the referendum as a pretext for justifying de facto Russian control of Crimea, even if not de jure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/03/thoughts-on-the-crisis-in-ukraine/?tid=pm_national_pop

The wording - at least the English translation in the article - seems odd. Does a "Yes" vote mean a vote for "state independence" or for being "a part of Ukraine"? If you want Crimea to stay in the Ukraine, do you vote Yes or No?

[another_liberal]

23. They do need to work on the wording, or on the translation . . .

No doubt about that.

[Bad Thoughts]

22. The perception of outside influence could easily affect such a vote ...

... even if it is simply a matter of independence. For instance, the vote in the Saar was tipped partially by the sense that France was pushing too hard for it to be an independent state.

[another_liberal]

24. Yes, there will be many influences at play . . .

The most important thing is that the vote be free and fair (a secret ballot is essential).